nobody pays much attention

In the United States, November 11 is called Veterans Day. In other parts of the world it’s called Remembrance Day or Armistice Day. The latter is appropriate since it celebrates the anniversary of the day hostilities formally ceased in the First World War. The 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918.

Ninety-five years. And what have we learned? Aside from more efficient and more impersonal methods for killing, not a hell of a lot. We’re still fighting wars, we’re still fighting them for the same stupid reasons, and at the behest of the same powerful business and political interests. Young men and women are still killing and dying in foreign lands. And nobody is paying much attention.

U.S. Army Pfc. Michael W. Daley Jr. (right) and Pfc. Travis B. Woolwine, both Soldiers with 1st Battalion, 506th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), scan their surroundings while on patrol in Paktya Province, Afghanistan / Photo by Sgt. Justin Moeller

U.S. Army Pfc. Michael W. Daley Jr. (right) and Pfc. Travis B. Woolwine, with 1st Battalion, 506th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), scan their surroundings while on patrol in Paktya Province, Afghanistan / Photo by Sgt. Justin Moeller

As of this date, 402 troops have died fighting in Afghanistan this year. Most of those (310) were US troops, but soldiers and marines from the UK, from Poland, from Georgia (the former Soviet state), from Romania and Slovakia and Italy and Germany and Australia have also been killed.

In the last few days 42-year-old Warrant Officer Ian Fisher of Barking, Essex in England was killed in an IED attack in Lashkar Gah in Helmund Province. Army Sergeant 1st Class Forrest Robertson, 35 years old, of Westmoreland, Kansas was killed by small arms fire in Pul-i-Alam in Kogar Province — also known as Bab al-Jihad, the Gates of Jihad, because of the savage fighting between Soviet troops and mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan war. Army Specialist Angel Lopez, 27, from Parma, Ohio was killed by small arms fire in a Green on Blue attack in Zabul Province. Twelve deaths in the first nine days this month. The youngest was 19 years old. Nineteen years old — Jeremiah Collins of Milwaukee wasn’t even old enough to buy a beer. Dead, 7000 miles from home, in service to his country.

US Army Spc. Kevin Jackson, 4th Squadron, 9th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, pulls security during a reconnaissance mission in a village south of Forward Operating Base Fenty, Nangarhar province, Afghanistan, Sept. 8, 2013 / Photo by Sgt. Margaret Taylor

US Army Spc. Kevin Jackson, 4th Squadron, 9th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, pulls security during a reconnaissance mission in a village south of Forward Operating Base Fenty, Nangarhar province, Afghanistan, Sept. 8, 2013 / Photo by Sgt. Margaret Taylor

All of those troop who’ve died have families and friends, they have fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, they have wives and husbands and children. Outside of their families and friends, hardly anybody will notice those deaths. Because nobody, really, is paying much attention.

I mentioned this earlier in the year. At that point there were about 70,000 US troops serving in Afghanistan; today there are about 60,000. Combat operations by US troops are slated to end in late 2014 — but even then the US will likely leave between 15,000 and 30,000 troops in the region. And be sure of this: some of them will be fighting and dying.

Cpl. Zachery K. Arrowood with 1st Battalion, 9th Marine Regiment, provides security during a patrol in Helmand province, Afghanistan, Oct. 12, 2013. The patrol was conducted to disrupt enemy activity in the area / Photo by Lance Cpl. Zachery B. Martin

Cpl. Zachery K. Arrowood with 1st Battalion, 9th Marine Regiment, provides security during a patrol in Helmand province, Afghanistan, Oct. 12, 2013. The patrol was conducted to disrupt enemy activity in the area / Photo by Lance Cpl. Zachery B. Martin

There’s still only one media outlet that routinely pays attention to the troops serving in combat zones — the liberal muckraking magazine Mother Jones. They still publish their brilliant photo series We’re Still at War: Photo of the Day. I don’t know how many people bother to look at the photos. Not enough. Not nearly enough.

Why? Because the war is primarily being fought by strangers — by people we don’t know and don’t care about. Historically, wars have always been fought primarily by the poor and working class. Officers, of course, usually come from the middle classes, but most of the killing and dying has been done by the underclasses. The demands of twelve years of war — the longest war in US history — have exacerbated that problem. The gap between the people who initiate the wars and the people who actually fight them is greater now than ever before. And the mass in the middle — which includes most of the American public — are estranged from both groups. And so when a soldier gets killed in some dusty desert, very few people are affected, and nobody pays much attention.

Marines and Georgian Soldiers with 33rd Georgian Battalion exit an MV-22 Osprey aircraft during an operation in Helmand province, Afghanistan, Sept. 23, 2013. Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 165 provided the service members with aerial support during the operation / Photo by Cpl. Ashley E. Santy

Marines and Georgian Soldiers with 33rd Georgian Battalion exit an MV-22 Osprey aircraft during an operation in Helmand province, Afghanistan, Sept. 23, 2013. Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 165 provided the service members with aerial support during the operation / Photo by Cpl. Ashley E. Santy

On Monday — Veterans Day — I’ll meet with my brother and my cousin, both of whom served in the Marines, and we’ll attend a breakfast given by a local grocery store chain (Hy-Vee), just as we’ve done for the last few years. There’ll be a lot of old veterans there — a handful from World War II, a few from Korea, some from Viet Nam and Iraq and Afghanistan. The food will be mediocre — but better than what we’d have gotten in the mess hall back when we were in uniform.

Nobody will be there just for the food. We’ll all be there because we’re veterans, and on this one day some folks will pay attention. Most of the veterans sitting down to breakfast will have scars, physical or emotional. Some will be missing limbs. And every one of us will, at some point, remember somebody who was wounded or killed.

Marines with 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, patrol near Forward Operating Base Musa Qala, Helmand province, Afghanistan, Oct. 19, 2013. The Marines of 3/7 patrolled to reduce enemy activity in the area / Photo by Lance Cpl. James Mast

Marines with 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, patrol near Forward Operating Base Musa Qala, Helmand province, Afghanistan, Oct. 19, 2013. The Marines of 3/7 patrolled to reduce enemy activity in the area / Photo by Lance Cpl. James Mast

As we enter and leave the breakfast venue, the volunteers from the grocery store will thank us for our service. And they’ll be sincere, because they’re working people. Some of them will be veterans themselves, or have family members who have served or are still serving. During the day a lot of politicians will also give public thanks for our service. Some of them will be sincere and some of them will mean it. Damned few of them, though, will actually understand what service to the country means. It means sacrifice. When most politicians speak about sacrifice, they’re talking about other people.

On Tuesday the 12th, the world will forget us for another year. Troops in Afghanistan will continue to go out on patrol. Some of them will get wounded. Some will get killed. And nobody will pay much attention.

Editorial note: The photos above were shot by members of the military, and published in Mother Jones magazine.

the right to be an absolute dick

Okay, so maybe it’s not clearly articulated in the Constitution of These United States, but c’mon you guys, you know it’s there. It’s what we call an ‘implied right’ and it’s totally guaranteed right there in the Ninth Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That’s it. That’s the entire 9th Amendment. It’s like, what…twenty words? Plus some Revolutionary War punctuation. Basically, it’s the Founding Fathers saying “Dude, we’re not going to write down every possible Right, because c’mon that’ll take forever, and besides — quill pens?” So just because the Right to be an Absolute Dick isn’t clearly enumerated, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

statue of liberty armed

A couple days ago a patriot exercised his Right to be an Absolute Dick by toting a rifle slung over his shoulder into Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix. That just made him a dick. The fact that he did this two days after the assault on TSA agents at LAX made him a Really Big Dick. It was his decision to bring his 12 year old son along with him to the airport — and arm that child with a semi-automatic pistol — that catapulted this guy to Absolute Dick status.

This guy and his 12 year old son had geared up and gone to the airport to meet an arriving passenger. The guy told the Phoenix Police Department he and his 12 year old son had come armed because he “feared for his family’s safety while at the airport.” I guess because you never know what sort of nutcases will show up at the airport with guns and start shooting folks.

You’d think the other people at Sky Harbor International would be comforted by knowing that there was a guy and a 12 year old boy armed with semi-auto weapons to defend them against anybody who might show up at the airport with semi-auto weapons. But no. Those sissies called the police, just because they were irrationally distressed that a guy and a 12 year old boy were strolling around the airport with semi-auto weapons two days after a guy a guy with a semi-auto weapon went to an airport and killed a TSA agent and wounded a few others.

children with gun

Obviously there was no reason for them to be upset. I mean, the guy had armed his 12 year old son. Surely that showed he was rational and reasonable. What kind of nutcase would bring a 12 year old boy to the airport and NOT give him the opportunity to defend himself? Remember what NRA spokesman Wayne LaPierre said:

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Also, a 12 year old boy with a gun. Also too in addition, maybe a 12 year old girl with a gun — if you can find a pink Hello Kitty semi-auto that’ll fit into her cute little hands.”

You may have noticed that I’m referring to the guy who gave his 12 year old son a semi-automatic pistol and brought him to the airport only as ‘the guy who gave his 12 year old son a semi-auto pistol.’ That’s on account of the police didn’t report the guy’s name (nor the name of the 12 year old boy). Why? Because they didn’t do anything wrong. It’s perfectly legal for folks (including, it seems, a 12 year old boy) to openly tote firearms into the unsecured areas of OK Corral International Sky Harbor International Airport.

LAX shooting

Sure, maybe the guy and his 12 year old son scared the shit out of dozens of other people waiting for flights at the airport — and sure, maybe the guy and his 12 year old son drew police officers away from their other duties and areas of responsibility — but a right that isn’t exercised isn’t a right at all. And this guy has a Constitutional right to be an Absolute Dick.

I can’t help remembering, though, what happened a few years back when a few Muslims awaiting a flight stopped to pray. And I can’t help wondering what would happen if an Arab-American exercised the right to openly carry a firearm in an international airport.

fear of flying comic

another angry anti-government white guy with a gun

Another angry anti-government white guy with a gun. We’ve been through it all before, and we’ll undoubtedly have to go through it again and again because this is what the United States has become. It’s sad, pathetic, and completely fucking stupid — but there it is.

Another angry anti-government white guy with a gun. And yeah, race is a factor. Sure there are angry minorities, and anti-government minorities, and minorities with guns, and even angry anti-govenrment women with guns. And yeah, some of them go to a mall or a school or a fast food restaurant and open fire — but not very often, and when that happens people express shock.

Paul Anthony Ciancia

Paul Anthony Ciancia

Was anybody terribly shocked that Paul Anthony Ciancia — another angry anti-government white guy with a gun — went to LAX and opened fire? No, not really. I suspect most folks just thought ‘Here we go again.’ I suspect most folks could even make a reasonable guess as to how Ciancia was dressed and armed. Let’s see…angry anti-government white guy with a gun…I’m gonna go with black clothes or camo, a bulletproof vest, some variation on an AR-15, and a buttload of ammunition.  And they’d be right. 

We all know how this sad, stupid story will play out. There’ll be talk of tightening airport security, conservatives will blame a flawed mental system (while voting to cut funds for mental health systems), some folks might even suggest this is a ‘learning moment’ (but if we learned anything at all from the Sandy Hook massacre, it’s that we never really learn anything at all), and the lunatics at the NRA will raise funds by claiming the president will use this shooting as an excuse to ‘grab our guns’ and violate the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Smith & Wesson .223-caliber M&P-15

Smith & Wesson .223-caliber M&P-15

They’ll ignore the fact that Paul Anthony Ciancia was a law-abiding gun owner until he carried his Smith & Wesson .223-caliber M&P-15 into LAX and started shooting TSA workers. Almost all mass murderers are law-abiding gun owners until they start killing people. By the way, I’ve got a shiny new quarter that says gun dealers are going to be selling a LOT more Smith & Wesson .223-caliber M&P-15s over the next couple of weeks.

The LAX shooting will disappear from the news in a couple of days. Most of us will go on with our lives and not give it another serious thought. But you know who will give it thought? Angry anti-government white guys with guns. We see this as a tragedy — no, not even that, really. We see it as just another in a seemingly interminable cascade of mass shootings. But angry anti-government white guys with guns see it as evidence of a conspiracy directed at angry anti-government white guys with guns — and they’ll get angrier and buy more guns.

APTOPIX_LAX_Shooting-074d6

Think I’m being pessimistic? Read this story on one of the most popular conservative ‘news’ sources, WND.com: Did TSA Know LAX Attack Coming? It’s conspiracy theory nonsense, but compared to the conspiracy theories posited in the comments, it sounds almost rational. If you have the stomach, read the comments. If you read the comments, the odds are you’ll feel a sense of despair. You’ll feel a sense of despair and you’ll turn away and probably try not to think about it.

And that’s one of the reasons we continue to suffer through these mass shootings. We’ve allowed a handful of angry anti-government white guys with guns to determine our future. They get angry and act, we despair and turn away. Until we get angry and stay angry and act on that anger, they’re always going to win.

can i discriminate just a little bit, please?

If you want to skip all the details, here’s the meat and potatoes of this post:

Betty Ann Odgaard: “Really, I’m not a bad person — I just want to be able to discriminate against gay folks getting married without getting in trouble or losing any income over it. Don’t make me do it, okay?”

This is how it all started: a gay couple wanted to get married at the Görtz Haus Gallery, which is a popular local marriage venue (it also serves as a rather tony luncheon bistro, has a flower shop and a gift shop, and offers picture framing). The owners of the Görtz Haus, Betty Ann and Richard Odgaard, informed the couple that they don’t allow gay weddings in their facility.

The Odgaards, you see, are Mennonites (well, she’s a Mennonite; he’s just a Lutheran with Mennonite tendencies). The Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective states marriage can only be between one man and one woman. Therefore it would violate the tenets of the Odgaards’ religion if they allowed a same-sex marriage in the Görtz Haus.

Unfortunately for the Odgaards, same-sex marriage has been legal in Iowa since 2009. The gay couple filed a grievance with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, and the ICRC essentially told the Odgaards they were required to follow the law like everybody else. 

Gortz Haus

Görtz Haus

All pretty straightforward so far, right? The law says the Odgaards can’t “discriminate against any person because of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, or disability.” The Odgaards were discriminating because sexual orientation. The Odgaards were told to stop doing that. And the green grass grows all around, all around. End of story, right?.

Not if you’re Betty Ann and Richard Odgaard. Given the choice between 1) following the law and 2) following the tenets of their faith, the Odgaards chose a third option: they decided to sue the Iowa Civil Rights Commission.

Betty and Richard Odgaard

Betty and Richard Odgaard

Lawyers from the Becket Fund for Religious LIberty have offered up a novel legal argument (and by ‘novel’ I mean ‘loopy’). You can read the entire complaint here, but from my reading it seems their argument rests on three points.

Point One — the Odgaards aren’t homophobes. They hire gay folks to do stuff for weddings, they serve lunch to gay folks in the bistro, and they let gay folks buy stuff in the various Görtz Haus shops.

[T]he Odgaards have willingly hired and served gays and lesbians throughout the Gallery’s history

Point Two — it’s not the Odgaards who want to deny same-sex couples the use of the Görtz Haus for their weddings, it’s their religion.

The Odgaards’ decision not to plan, facilitate, or host wedding ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs is an action taken without regard to the sexual orientation of any potential customers. Their decision is instead based on a religious conviction against personally and publicly promoting activities that violate their religious beliefs.

Point Three — if they’re required to choose between following the law like everybody else or following their religion, then they’d have to stop allowing anybody from getting married in the Görtz Haus, and that would reduce their income.

Despite the devastating impact it would have on their business, the Odgaards’ religious convictions would require them to stop hosting any wedding ceremonies rather than knowingly host wedding ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs.

In other words, the Odgaards are simple gay-friendly folks whose religion prohibits them from letting same-sex couples get married in their facility, so they’d very much like the court to let them get by with just this teensy-weensy bit of discrimination so their church will be happy and they won’t lose any income. Is that so unreasonable?

Oh, and if the court won’t allow them a little leeway in discrimination, then the Odgaards would like the court to “declare that the Iowa Civil Rights Act violates the Iowa and United States Constitutions.” They’ve also asked that the ICRC to pay them “nominal damages” for their unfair treatment. Also attorney fees. 

gay wedding cake

I suspect Betty Ann and Richard Odgaard are fundamentally decent people. I believe they truly enjoy putting on weddings at Görtz Haus. And I’m sure they appreciate the income brought by those weddings. I’m confident that what they really want is for everything to go back to the way it was before that same-sex couple complicated their lives by asking to get married in their facility.

That’s how privileged people always feel. They always want the world to return to a simpler and more comfortable time when they didn’t have to consider the feelings or wants or needs of other folks.

There’s a lot of real religious repression taking place in the world. There are places where practicing religion is actually dangerous. But Iowa isn’t one of them. Nobody is preventing the Odgaards from practicing their religion. Nobody is denying them the right to express their religious beliefs. If there’s a conflict between their religion and the law, they have a clear choice: follow their religious beliefs and accept the loss of income from weddings, or follow the law and continue to live comfortably.

The choice may be uncomfortable, but it shouldn’t be difficult.